What I've Learned (Pooh-Bah type post)

[phosix]

i think guru man is gonna be my mentor.

[Paxosmotic]

I'll post a rebuttal to a few things tonight. I think it's important that people are doing what I said and not blindly posting "POTY OMG!" and instead pointing out things they have problems with. I also think a few people have honed in on how I said something (thus changing the meaning) and not so much on what I was saying. I'll elaborate on a few things tonight, and if you still disagree, then you're probably right.

[davelin]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you have any idea how easy it is to look good at poker? Make big replies, have a big post count, you must be good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dammit you found me out! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Paxosmotic]

I'll reply to the three main disagreement posts in the thread. You'll have to scroll up for the bulk of their post if you want it.

[ QUOTE ]
I can't tell if we agree and you just worded it poorly, or we are completely at odds.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we agree in principle. I believe you should study your opponents plays, not just their statistics. I believe that if you catch them raising a hand like 97s in early position, an alarm should go off and you should take a little note. But I do not believe that if you see them do that once it is an excuse to do something absurdly stupid, which I have seen people do. The quote I gave in my OP, "I had seen him bet on the river with an unimproved ace, so I called his river bet with my pocket sixes getting 4:1" is a good example. If you have an opponent who is 19/12 preflop, and you've once seen him raise with T3o, that does not mean you need to scream "haha, got you!" and isolate with KJo next time he raises. You need to take a note of the T3o and start keeping track of him. The problem I was trying to illustrate with my post was that singular reads are terrible. Making well studied reads will always be part of poker.

Guruman also discusses observing when an opponent check/raises and when he valuebets. I agree, this is important too, but is outside the scope of what I was discussing, and actually seems to be AGREEING with me. I stated if you're going to watch a player, watch every play they make, and that's what he is advocating.

I think the misunderstanding is that I was trying to show how making one particular read was harmful to your game (the singular read), and you guys are taking it as a manifesto on making all of your reads. That, it is not.

Guruman also posted a contention with my preflop range slider comment. If you have an opponent that you believe will not raise TT, but will raise AT, you need to go in and manually change that. But that's not even the point. The point of using the preflop range slider is not to reach a decision on a hand. You're not going to pause a live poker game, run to pokerstove, and check your preflop equity. It is useless in specific situations. You're using it away from the table to study the math of various decisions. It is but one component of studying the game. You should be reviewing hands in PT, posting on 2+2, reading a book, and yes, working with some situations in PokerStove.

I've discussed the science vs art thing, but I will say this: I believe that every poker decision, whether pre or post flop, is a math decision. The psychology of the game factors directly into the math. If you're making a bet on the river trying to bluff an opponent out of the pot, you can put very exact numbers on how often your play needs to be effective and compare it to his folded to river bet and previous actions you've seen to calculate the EV of the bet. It's not just a Stu Ungar "I just knew" moment. Even my preflop "art" is, in truth, just math. Calculate the likelyhood of your stealing the blinds from the button, then calculate the strength of your hand vs what they'll call with.

Off the top of my head, I think those are the important parts to discuss.

[MrWookie]

I agree that, yes, with enough information and time, poker can be worked out to a science. However, the actual play of the game is inherently art, specifically the art of estimation. Putting someone on a range of hands, some of which you beat, but have n outs against you, and some of which beat you and you have m outs against, your equity can't be worked out in real time. People who "feel it" are not always divining the right play from nothing, but they might be rapidly recalling past estimations from similar situations and going with a rough sense of how it all fits together.

[phosix]

uhhh btw i think to cold call with 78 and only 2 opponents is a garbage play. guru man is king
pax i hate u
but nice post for some afternoon humor
please correct my grammer to the best of your ability. and dont forget punctuaction and general organization of thoughts.

if there is some time you can give some poker advice while you are at it.

[phosix]

i think that one must adjust to how their opponents are currently playing not how their stats over a long haul portray them. several currents factors will control their play.
at the micros they will change their play by "how they are running"
the higher limits one plays the more their villians will play by "responding to the game conditions at the time"

either way the opponents play theoretically will change no matter what the stakes. and this my gereatric friends is what makes poker so beutiful.
p.s. for the above mentioned reasons is why we need to stop quoting sshe so god ddamn much

love 2+2 and hate pax
pho

[MrWookie]

Trolling Pax, or the Micro forum in general is not tolerated here. For this third instance of trolling, you've earned yourself a 3 day suspension. Keep it civil, or keep out of this forum.

[Smurph64]

I like what you are saying and I think the argument of art vs. science is probably semantics.

Bottom line though is understanding why you make a move. I continue to make the 'right' moves all the time through various means but from posting it is obvious that I am still not quite clear as to why I am making the move that I am.

People often confuse the results with the process and that is something we have to try and avoid. It is not easy of course but that is why I think posting hands on boards and posting grunches and analysis on the boards is so much more than Insert Bet A into slot OESD, BDFD TPMK scenarios that we all seem to break this down into all the time.

From my perspective I think that is what Pax is advocating here, is that thinking and knowing why you are doing something is the most important element of the learning process, not the memorization of a playbook.

[Hielko]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm just overcomplicating basic decisions to show the math behind them. I'll translate all three to English.

1) If pot equity is larger than the size of the bet I'm facing, but isn't a higher percentage than the percent of the pot I'm contributing this round, it's a call. (ie drawing to an inside straight in a 13 bet pot)

2) If my pot equity is larger than the size of the bet I'm facing and is larger than the percentage of the pot I'm contributing this round, it's a call (ie raising a flush draw on the flop)

3) Take into account the likelyhood your opponent is bluffing and adjust your outs accordingly.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you underestimate the complexity of most postflop decisions, and how easy it is to estimate things like folding equity, hand ranges and the tendencies of your opponents. Also concepts like raising for a free card, slowplaying, semi bluffing, free showdown raises, hand protection and inducing bluffs are all important and aren't captured in this simplistic postflop approach. And this is just the top of the iceberg of things to consider postflop.